> it will never make up for the cost to the country

The opposite is true -- smokers contribute much more in taxes than the cost of smoking related illnesses [1], and more importantly, die younger so tend not to have the long lingering (very expensive) deaths of non-smokers.

See "The smoke screen" ("Yes, Prime Minister", 1986) for a comedic take on this.

[1] https://fullfact.org/economy/does-smoking-cost-much-it-makes...

This is the video you are referring to:

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0751841/

Will check it out.

I like the idea to say we actually help the country rather than are a burden.

Plus we're generally less dogmatic, more able to commit little rebellions and care less about the consequence of our naughty behaviour so we may bring something to a country of robot health nuts whose sole worries in life are self preservation and tax savings.

Now I wouldnt go so far as to encourage people to smoke, it's still an annoying daemon running permanently bothering you constantly to refill the craving.

As the majority of the costs of smokes will be tax, you’ll have to do better than 2% to beat inflation.

Australia has had a progressive tobacco sin tax being indexed annually for a number of years now.

The average price of a packet of cigarettes is now close to AUD 40 (give or take a few $$ and up from being AUD 9 back in 2008 circa). People still smoke and chain smoke.

The question remains: do sin taxes actually work to compel people to give up smoking, or they merely benefit the state treasury?

Even if the tax doesn't cause people to give up smoking, it can offset the costs incurred by the state due to cigarette related health and sanitation issues. Let the retards kill themselves slowly, as long as I don't have to smell it or pay for their health care.